I take Mr. Davies' point, but I think this list of topics is suggestive. I don't believe the letter should go out before we've finished deliberations on the clause-by-clause. We can revise this list, and add to it or subtract from it, once we've finished the clause-by-clause. I personally would like to see that kind of language from our analysts to have an idea what the letter would look like in the end. Actually, to that list, I would also suggest adding a provision to consider licensees who have had previous convictions relating to cannabis.

I think it's more powerful when we come with a unanimous letter. I like the idea of that. I would be prepared to support the four that Mr. Davies indicated: the public health education and awareness; the establishing of metrics; the outreach and support to first nations, Inuit, and Métis; and the concerns regarding management of international treaties.

I would exclude the other two because I expect the NDP to bring amendments on those and I would not be supportive of the one that's been proposed by Mr. McKinnon.

On the consideration for the licensing of producers with prior convictions, if there were a successful amendment to the bill and they were subsequently able to be pardoned, that probably wouldn't stand in the way of their applications.

I would accept those changes. I also agree with the comment that this is probably something we look at after we've finished clause-by-clause because there is no intent here to attempt to pre-empt the work of the committee.

If John is in agreement, then I am. I was just going to respond to Ron's point, but yes, I think it's bad form to have a piece of paper in advance that's basically just telling people you're not going to entertain any amendments. That's not really—

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question—I'm sorry—about the clause by clause. I can't remember if those are in camera or televised. Are they public?

I'll request that we televise mainly—and I will give credit to the government for their televising of the witness testimony—to finish off this loop, particularly because we're doing it quite quickly. It would be wise to have Canadians see the amendment process.

Now, we had a proposed schedule for the PBO report, but that just got changed. Next week we are not going to have any meetings. We have to decide when we're going to have the PBO give his report and then we are going to.... Are we going to have one meeting with him? Are we going to have a draft report meeting? How are we going to do this?

Would you like to suggest timing for this? We're now scheduled for up until October 5.

We redistributed the work plan, or the remaining meetings of the work plan, and that consists of getting a presentation from the PBO, who will present his report. After that, the other thing that was on the work plan was a final round table discussion, which the committee agreed would be longer. It would be about a three-hour meeting, and then in a subsequent meeting, you would provide us with drafting instructions for the final report.

Yesterday, or maybe it was today, the summary of evidence was distributed. I tried out a new format, so I'm open to feedback if you want me to do it differently. I did it in a series of tables so that you could clearly see what the witness said, a summary of the key points, and then their recommendations. I thought that would be helpful when you're providing me with drafting instructions if you could see very clearly who said what without my providing a kind of narrative.

The testimony is divided based on subjects. I know it's a bit long, so each table is prefaced with a little summary within the summary. That's on the pharmacare.

Basically, we would have a meeting with the PBO to make the report. Then we're going to have a round table meeting to discuss it, and we already have a list here. Then we'll have another meeting for drafting instructions for the PBO.